Managing Complex Knowledge in Sustainable Planning: A Semantic-Based Model for Multiagent Water-Related Concepts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution presents an interesting insight into the branch of urban ontology as a tool to support more sustainable decision-making processes, in particular urban bioregion development. As significant example to validate the method, a Knowledge Management System has been developed for water resources. Although the topic sounds innovative for the urban planning field and the paper is well structured, I would suggest accepting the paper after minor revisions have been integrated:

1. Abstract.

I would recommend revising the abstract to provide more information on the main objective and scope of the paper. The current abstract focuses mainly on describing the state-of-the-art related to ecosystem services, bioregions, and water resources, but lacks important details that would help readers better understand the paper. It would be helpful to include a brief discussion of urban ontology and semantic extensions.

Additionally, the authors mention in line 13 that their work is focused on a particular research direction, but the abstract does not clearly convey what this direction is.

2. Introduction.

In line 121 (pp 4) "OWL" is cited for the first time. What does the acronym stand for?

As for the abstract, much space is given to ecosystem services and bioregional planning literature, but helpful materials for readers not so keen in urban ontology should be provided. In particular, I would recommend the authors to explicit how this approach may be applies in urban planning practices.

3. Discussion.

For clarity's sake, I would recommend the authors to provide takeaways for urban planning practice in order to better arguing what is declared in lined 347-349.

4. English proof-reading

I suggest that the authors have their text revised by English native-speakers. Some sentences are too lengthy (e.g. line 50-52, 57-60), and many words are repeated multiple times (e.g. "increasingly", "extensive").

5. Figures

I would recommend increase the quality of figure 4, which is not easily readable.

6. References

It has been noticed that almost half of the references cited in the bibliography section are missing the publication year. Please make sure to add it to each reference.

Additionally, I suggest that the authors update the bibliography section as most of the products mentioned are dated no earlier than 2017.

I suggest that the authors have their text revised by English native-speakers. Some sentences are too lengthy (e.g. line 50-52, 57-60), and many words are repeated multiple times (e.g. "increasingly", "extensive").

Author Response

Please see the attached sheet

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A brief summary outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this research study submitted to the sustainability journal. The topic of the research, focusing on the challenges and complexities of urban bioregions and their integration of green infrastructures, nature-based solutions, and ecosystem services, is of great importance. The paper attempts to shed light on the need for comprehensive and differentiated operational strategies to restore sustainable ecosystem configurations within urban bioregions.

However, the paper is poorly produced. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide clearer background information and establish a stronger foundation of knowledge in the introduction section. This would help readers understand the context and significance of the research more easily. Additionally, the complexity of the writing style could be simplified to enhance clarity and comprehension for readers, facilitating a better understanding of the key issues raised and the research process.

Furthermore, it would be helpful to explicitly state the research question, as well as the aims and objectives, to clearly define the focus of the study and address any gaps in the existing research. By doing so, readers would better understand the purpose and direction of the research. This paper needs significant improvements to the overall quality in providing background information, simplifying the writing style, and clearly articulating the research question and objectives. 

 Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

 The abstract should be written using clear and simple language. is important to ensure that the abstract is written in clear and simple language, avoiding the use of technical jargon and ambiguous statements. In its current form, the abstract does not effectively provide the reader with a quick overview of your research and its key observations or points. It would be helpful to include a concise summary of the implications or applications discussed in the paper. By refining the abstract, you can enhance its clarity and make it more engaging for readers.

In Section 1, the introduction of the scientific background appears to include an abundance of concepts without a clear link to the development of the conceptual or scientific framework for this specific research. While the need for comprehensive and differentiated operational strategies to restore sustainable ecosystem configurations within urban bioregions is understood, it would be helpful to provide a more direct and focused connection between the background information and the research objectives. This would enhance the clarity and coherence of the research framework.

The Materials and Methods section of the paper is currently weak and lacks clarity in terms of the research design used to conduct the study. While the section introduces conceptual frameworks and diagrams, it fails to explain how these were employed or their significance to the research. To address this issue, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive and detailed description of the research design, including the methodologies employed and how they were applied to achieve the research objectives. This will help readers understand the relevance and implications of the conceptual frameworks and diagrams presented in the section. By enhancing the clarity and coherence of the Materials and Methods section, the research design will be more effectively communicated and contribute to the overall quality of the study.

The methods proposed in this section do not clearly tighten up with the main research question of the research. However, noted that line 147 153 introduces some objectives and goals of this research which makes it too late for the reader to get some clarity of the research. In any case, the first objective states that implementation of a knowledge management system with semantic extensions and the creation of an initial knowledge base in the hydrological domain seems impossible to understand to the reader what it means.

It is noted that the paper lacks a conclusion section, which is essential for summarizing the researchers' thoughts and conveying the implications or knowledge contributions derived from the research. Including a conclusion would greatly enhance the overall structure of the paper and provide a clear summary of the key findings and their significance. Additionally, it would allow readers to grasp the broader implications of the research and its potential impact in the field. I recommend adding a well-developed conclusion section to strengthen the paper's structure and ensure that the research findings are effectively communicated to the readers.

Comment on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc. These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

Line 49 where you mentioned the need to define "operational strategies" in the context of urban bioregions. It would be helpful if you could provide further clarification on what specifically these operational strategies entail and how they differ or relate to other contexts. Additionally, it would be beneficial to explain what is meant by "articulated and differentiated operational strategies."

Line 50 – define in the paragraph what it means homothetically complex efforts means?

The authors haven’t yet defined multi-agent knowledge but have been using it throughout. Later introduced single-agent based to multi- agent based knowledge systems (line 62). Please provide background to what this means. Also, support these statements with relevant references.

Line 89, what it means the mediation-oriented approach?

Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff.

Abstract

In lines 6-7 the statement, In fact, within urban and environmental plans, the transition to multi-agent knowledge systems has created significant problems of knowledge understanding and management is unclear. Could you please revise this statement, introduce it to the reader, and avoid technical jargon in the abstract without explaining it (i.e., multi-agent knowledge systems)?

Sentences 9-10 state ecosystems services, biomimetic solutions and green infrastructures as the reference domain. In Line 1, you have also used the concept of nature-based solutions.

Lines 10- 13 state A hydrological data management model, transversal and structural with respect to environmental planning actions, could represent a flagship initiative. It could then broaden the approach to more complex and extensive areas of the environmental domain,in a perspective of sustainable planning. Then you state the present work is oriented just in this research direction. This whole sentence is unclear. Could you please break or simplify this statement to the reader and clearly explain what the direction of this research is?

 

Line 14-15. The same issues continue; please simplify the statement, The main objective is to investigate about a knowledge management system with semantic extensions, populated with an experimental knowledge content, as well as to propose a functional architecture to the reader. This has too much technical jargon that the authors have yet to introduce this background to the reader.

Introduction

The statement in lines 28-29 is unclear. Please modify or rewrite.

Missing references in Lines 40-43.

Missing references in Lines 57-59.

Missing references and unclear statements in Lines 71-73. Add references and make these sentences clearer for the reader.

Completely unclear statement in lines 93 – 95.

The repeated sentence in Lines 106-107

 

Line 121 you introduced a new acronym to the reader, OWL-based ontological modelling. Please use the acronym, OWL

Your writing style is quite complex and overloaded with information. The sentence structures are convoluted, making it challenging to follow the flow of ideas. I recommend simplifying your sentences and breaking down the information into more digestible chunks. This will enhance the clarity and readability of your research paper, allowing readers to grasp the main points more easily.

Author Response

Please see the attached sheet

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with a topic of great relevance: the water resource, as part of the green infrastructure. It addresses a hydrological, cross-sectional and structural data management model with regard to environmental planning actions. Its main objective is to investigate a “knowledge management system with semantic extensions, filled with experimental knowledge content, as well as to propose a functional architecture”.

However, the concepts, proposed objectives, methodology and results presented in this paper should be more deeply connected.

In the introduction, the authors argue, with scientific contributions, about the relationship between bioregional processes in a balanced and sustainable way and the difficulties of implementing knowledge management with multi-agents within environmental plans, especially the participatory one.

In the following part,  “Materials and Methods”, the article presents a break with the previously established reasoning, without including a  theorical part that explains the concepts used in the argumentation.

In that part, the authors proceed to describe the functional architecture of a knowledge management system with the purpose of defining a useful tool in the field of hydrology. The objective is to improve the interdomain communication in order to increase the common semantic understanding of the data obtained in the formal and informal scopes. However, the authors don’t specify which are the formal and informal elements that would feed the knowledge management system.

In the final part, very succinctly, the authors return from the systemic complexity of the concept of urban bioregion, arguing that a model based on semantic exploration was proposed to deal with multi-agent concepts related to water resource, which was not clear throughout the text.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached sheet

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The meta-problem addressed by these authors is how to inform and to some extent manage participatory decision making in contexts where the reality is highly complex. Without effective ways to convey this complexity to citizen participants, the participatory process may disintegrate.

The authors promise to “… investigate about a knowledge management system with semantic extensions, populated with an experimental knowledge content, as well as to propose a functional architecture. A simple ontology of data has been extracted, aiming at clarifying and improving inter-domain communication, so as to enhance a common semantic understanding” (Abstract). However, the writing style is ponderous and verbose, in contrast to the tables and figures, which convey a lot of detail that seems to be overly specific. The authors find virtue in “operationally preserv(ing) this complexity”. They argue that this is happening, but do not run a case study demonstration. They promise to develop “an interesting follow-up perspective” in future work, but such a perspective would be very helpful here.

2.2       Reference to AGID suggests that the geographic context is Italy. How helpful is all this detail if the software is “… available on the private network of the Department of Civil, Environmental, Territorial, Construction and Chemical Engineering”? I pose this question seriously: what would it take for investigators to apply this approach in places beyond the reach of Italian bureaucracy and local knowledge?

A lot of these models have been around for some time. One wonders if the authors are using the latest and best. Compatibility of platform sub-models, each preserving as much of the real-world complexity as possible, is a big issue for the authors. Does that drive them toward older, more familiar models?  

The discussion claims that the approach conserves the existing complexity, and that this good, but it seems to me that the issue is more subtle than just conserving complexity. At some point, all that complexity becomes unwieldy.

Tables 3 – 6 provide a lot of detail, much of which seems better suited to an appendix.

Figures 1, 4, and 5 are hardly self-explanatory. Readers would benefit from more explanation and interpretation.

 

The issue is verbosity and grandiosity. There are not many issues with the basics of English grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attached sheet

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the time and effort you've put into revising your manuscript based on the initial review comments. After reading the updated version, it's clear that progress has been made. However, there remain a number of areas which could benefit from further refinement to improve the overall clarity and structure of your paper.

 

- In the introduction section, it has been observed that there are certain claims made without the support of in-text citations. To reinforce your arguments and provide a more concrete foundation, I recommend the inclusion of pertinent references, particularly in the newly added sections.

 

- There's an inconsistency in the manuscript's terminology, with some subsections being referred to as "chapters". If unintentional, I suggest using consistent nomenclature for clarity.

 

- The term 'semantic-based model', which is part of the article's title, is not adequately defined until the closing paragraph of the introduction. This could potentially leave readers confused. To remedy this, consider defining the term earlier in the introduction and provide insight into why it is critical in managing multiagent water-related knowledge.

 

- Several new additions in the Materials and Methods section seem out of place but could provide value if relocated to the introduction. However, the introduction already appears extensive. I recommend trimming it down to ensure a more reader-friendly experience. The last few paragraphs which discuss web platforms and methodological background can stay in this section.

 

- The paper's objectives include numerous technical terminologies, causing difficulties in understanding. It would benefit from a less technical or more thoroughly explained presentation of these objectives and terminologies.

 

- Figures 1, 5, and 6 are without detailed explanations. As these are not self-explanatory, it is recommended that either you provide clearer explanations or consider moving these figures to the appendix if they don't contribute to the main narrative.

 

- The value of Figure 3 is not immediately clear. If it does not contribute directly to the main text, you may consider moving it to the appendix.

 

- For better comprehension, it is suggested to encapsulate all the methods used in a single diagram. This visual should include clear explanations of each step in the research process and demonstrate how each tool contributes to answering the main research question.

 

- The 'Discussion' and 'Conclusion' sections currently appear fused and could benefit from clear demarcation. Ensure to detail the key findings, insights, and contributions of your research to the existing knowledge in the 'Discussion' section.

 

- A comprehensive conclusion section is needed, summarizing the key points of the research, their implications, and presenting your key recommendations. As of now, your conclusion only provides a tentative conceptual framework and it would be beneficial to offer a solid wrap-up of your findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This article is clearly a progress report and should be labeled and presented as such. Given that you have not yet implemented this approach in a real-world case, the tone of your report should be a more tentative. You have reasons to hope and perhaps believe it will contribute to better participatory decision making, but claims in that regard should be tentative at this stage.

English expression has been improved in this revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. While I acknowledge that the authors have addressed some of the previously raised review questions, I still have concerns that some of the responses overlook the key drawbacks raised in this manuscript simply disregarding them. 

 

Specifically, a thorough literature review has not been conducted, and the study lacks novelty. The methodology of the research is not adequately explained, and the paper's objectives remain unclear.

 

The methodology is highly conceptual and lacks scientific robustness, making it difficult to understand its applicability elsewhere. The discussion and conclusion sections do not clearly state the research's novelty or contribution to existing knowledge. Perhaps the lack of empirical evidence weakens the arguments and makes the research findings less convincing.

Author Response

ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. While I acknowledge that the authors have addressed some of the previously raised review questions, I still have concerns that some of the responses overlook the key drawbacks raised in this manuscript simply disregarding them..

Response

• Thank you for your third review. Actually we seem to have addressed all previous specific requests, if something specific slipped out of our response it was not our intention nor did we try to overlook any key drawback at all. Rather, we cannot but appreciate opinions, suggestions, requests to improve or even redraw a paper and even the whole research if needed, provided that recommendations are focused and specified, so as to allow our rewriting work operationally. That is what we actually tried to do, concerning all specific requests made by all reviewers. Additionally, requests had to be addressed also when somehow contrasting from one reviewer to another – which is not easy work, as you may surely know from your authoring activity.

 

Specifically, a thorough literature review has not been conducted….

Response

• A literature review has been actually carried out progressively extending it from the first paper version to the last one, to address previous requests. We are aware that literature is always growing, then any specific qualified suggestion of literature readings would be more than welcome to enrich the literature review. Needless to say, this would further extend a reference list currently reaching about sixty references -website references excluded.

 

….and the study lacks novelty.

Response

• It is really hard to use this statement to operationally improve the paper, without focused requests. To our knowledge, research on managing complex knowledge in sustainable planning is one of the most promising frontiers of sustainable planning studies. In this context, it seems to us that the exploration of an actual decision support system to manage complex data for environmental decisionmaking and planning may represent a novel insight in that perspective – particularly using ontology approaches.

 

The methodology of the research is not adequately explained….

Response

• In previous review rounds we have tried to improve the explanation of the methodology of research, to address similar requests. If it is still lacking adequate explanations, it would be useful for us to learn where and in which sense inadequacy appears according to the reviewer’s qualified stance. A general statement does not help us to identify what is actually inadequate and unfortunately prevents us from fulfilling the request.

 

…and the paper's objectives remain unclear.

Response

• We actually stated research general and specific objectives along the paper, to address reviewer’s requests in previous rounds. If they still remain unclear, it would be useful for us to learn where and in which sense a lack of clarity appears according to the reviewer’s qualified stance. Again, a general statement does not help us to identify what is actually unclear and unfortunately prevents us from fulfilling the request.

 

The methodology is highly conceptual and lacks scientific robustness, making it difficult to understand its applicability elsewhere.

Response

• Since from its title, the paper explicitly deals with a model to manage concepts, being at an early exploratory stage – as several times recalled along the text. It is not intended as a complete platform to be immediately replicable elsewhere. In this sense, the paper needs to be conceptual, because conceptualization is a common terrain on which to build different subsequent application lines in contexts with a high character of environmental complexity – such as urban bioregions. We have cited and argued on scientific literature on this point, from both substantial (complexity, sustainability, participation etc) to methodological (knowledge modelling, data management, ontologies etc..) points of view. In this scientific effort, it is really hard for us to address a general remark of lacking scientific robustness, without specific indications that could allow our possible changing and/or rewriting actions.

 

The discussion and conclusion sections do not clearly state the research's novelty or contribution to existing knowledge. Perhaps the lack of empirical evidence weakens the arguments and makes the research findings less convincing.

Response

• Also in this case, it is hard to address requests that appear to be general and not specific. At present, we think that the research objectives are sufficiently argued and commented in relations with the outcomes of the research study. Also, possible follow-up perspectives are shown, particularly in applying the studied modelling approach to the complex fields of planning knowledge. The paper may lack evidence from area-based case studies, but as extensively argued an aware and robust scientific modelling approach is needed before any application to real-planning situation – which will be nevertheless pursued by our group in the near future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf